A COLUMN ON TOLERANCE AND ITS ROLE IN A FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS

A COLUMN ON TOLERANCE AND ITS ROLE IN A FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS

This is more than a casual remark on Tolerance. We ask ourselves whether there is a minimum subset of ethics which are universal in nature and which transcend the limitations of geography and ethnic identification. Suppose we found ourselves amongst a civilization about which we knew nothing. Is there a universal set of ethics that could be used to establish rapport with an otherwise alien population? And finally is Tolerance a universal ethic or virtue? I will explain why this is an important ethic in the current era.

Most values which we like to think of as universal are transmitted to us thanks to our parents at a very early age. These values originate in very familiar familial admonitions e.g., be courteous to your guests , treat people with respect and dignity, be kind and helpful to seniors, heed the admonitions from elders in the family , do not indulge in gratuitous violence, do not be derisive of those of who are less fortunate than you are, tell the truth, etc. etc.. If one follows these simple rules, the question of intolerance does not arise., because if a person follows these universal principles , there is very little incentive or opportunity for him or her to be intolerant. Generally the teachings we imbibe in the home before we get into our teenage years are universal values and the exceptions that do occur in these behaviors are not of relevance to young children. It is our contention that tolerance is not a part of the set of ethics that are taught at a very early age as a universal ethic. There is good reason for this , because immediately questions arise . Should we tolerate evil and if so what constitutes evil.

We maintain that neither an individual nor society should tolerate evil in general and intolerance in particular.

And yet in our zeal to be liberal (being liberal makes us feel good without sacrificing whole lot)) and our natural tendency to think well of people from other ethnic or religious backgrounds , we choose to overlook the blatant intolerance that sometimes pervades the world. We tend to argue that because we observe a universal set of ethics that others do so also. Herein, lays the problem. Not every individual or society will profess to have the same set of values as we may have . In particular, not every society will have the same reverence for life as we may have. It is certainly the case that when it comes to tolerance towards other faiths there are significant differences between religions and societies. Whenever the Occidental stepped out into a new world his first endeavor was to convert the people in the new world to his own faith . And once they were converted to the new faith , they could exercise considerable control over the mind and body of the newly converted person. The main reason for such conversion was that they had very little tolerance for the native faiths.

Similarly there are significant differences in the reverence for life that are observed by different societies and faiths . So the question arises , should we tolerate faiths that are inherently intolerant. I mean by inherently intolerant if the faith calls for extermination of those who do not belong to the faith. But one might argue that most members of a faith do not take such injunctions (to kill the infidel) seriously. That may very well be true but even if the percentage who believed in the injunctions of their holy book are only 1% that could still be a very large number, enough to do harm to you or your family should the occasion arise.
So what to so ? I say , that it is legitimate to ask that such injunctions (to Kill) in a holy book are not acceptable in the modern age and should not be tolerated in any civilized society .

There is one more problem with tolerance . And that is , it is not particularly proper to talk about tolerating other faiths or civilizations , because that raises the question of putting oeself on a pedestal and judging who or what we should tolerate and the question here is what right do we have to arrogate unto ourselves the right to tolerate others with all the attendant condescension . If one embraces diversity , then one should say so and act accordingly rather than grudgingly tolerate diversity.

To summarize
1 Tolerance can never be a universal ethic
2. It must always be qualified (what are we asked to tolerate)
3. Even when it is qualified , should we put ourselves on a moral pedestal and tolerate others or should we be genuinely understanding of other faiths andvalues
4. In any event, no society or individual should be placed in the position of having to tolerate evil or intolerant behavior .